The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Barlow Robbins LLP

Work 020 7078 0810

London: Private client

Family: mediation
Family: mediation - ranked: tier 2

Barlow Robbins LLP

Karen Barham at Barlow Robbins LLP continues to be one of the ‚Äėgo-to‚Äô mediators involving both children and finance cases where there is an international element. In 2018 Barham qualified in the Hybrid Model and has qualified as a parenting co-ordinator.

Practice head(s):Judith Ball

Other key lawyers:Karen Barham


'Karen Barham is a very competent and capable mediator. She is a fantastic communicator and is able to manage stressful and emotional situations by bringing calm and focus'.

'Karen Barham is a very experienced and fair mediator'.

'Karen Barham is an exceptionally versatile mediator who can bring an unflappable and considered approach to even the most challenging cases'.

'Karen Barham is very approachable and has a  pragmatic approach, which gets results'.

'Karen Barham is one of the most experienced mediators in the country . Highly responsive and with excellent communication skills'.

'Karen Barham is a very proactive and successful mediator.  She is invariably successful in getting positive results in the meditations she undertakes, even in the most challenging cases'.

'Karen Barham has always had a strong reputation and is an experienced mediator'.

'Karen Barham has a fantastic, no nonsense, humorous manner, a great knowledge of the law from her years of practice as a family lawyer before specialising in mediation and an ability to think laterally and out of the box to achieve resolution'.

Work highlights

  • Successfully mediated a settlement involving a number of properties and assets with complex issues of taxation and foreign interests.
  • Worked with colleagues in company commercial and employment / HR departments to implement a settlement agreement between husband and wife on their divorce.
  • Mediated a co-parenting plan to achieve an exact equality of parenting time.
  • Mediating in an international relocation of children matter.
Leading individuals

Karen Barham - Barlow Robbins LLP

[back to top]

London: Public sector

Education: schools
Education: schools - ranked: tier 2

Barlow Robbins LLP

Barlow Robbins LLP acts for an impressive roster of clients which includes several high-profile schools. Led by the 'exceptional' Joanna Lada-Walicki, the team combines charity and education law expertise to cover a wide range of education matters, including employment issues, mergers, commercial contracts and governance. Ben Collingwood has a focus on safeguarding and pastoral care issues.

Practice head(s):Joanna Lada-Walicki

Other key lawyers:Ben Collingwood; Gordon Reid


'Ben Collingwood is outstanding in his measured advice, wise counsel and ability to analyse situations with great clarity and perception at great speed.'

'Barlow Robbins' education and charities department is exceptional due to key partners such as Joanna Lada Walicki, who is exceptional and outstanding in her advice, experience, professionalism, and value for money.'

'Joanna Lada-Walicki is an expert in employment law and has worked for a long time in this sector. She understands the sector very well from all angles and gives excellent advice.'

'Joanna Lada-Walicki is very diligent, very supportive and provides much-valued help and advice.'

'Gordon Reid is very helpful and provided very tailored advice when needed.'

Key Clients


West Buckland School

Boarding Schools’ Association

Independent Schools Examinations Board

Eastbourne College

Bede’s School

Hurstpierpoint College

Seaford College

Lewes Old Grammar School

Prior’s Field School

Work highlights

  • Advised a leading independent day and boarding school for pupils on complex staff disciplinary and pastoral/safeguarding issues, involving parent complaints and an emergency inspection.
  • Advised a co-educational preparatory school in London in connection with allegations of bullying from the parent of a former pupil, including threatened litigation.
  • Advised a leading co-educational senior boarding and day school regarding concerns about the head of nursing following convictions for drug-driving, disclosure of alcohol dependency, and incapacity due to drug/alcohol at work.
  • Audited a large co-educational boarding and day school’s historic records of allegations of sexual abuse and conducted a safeguarding audit.
  • Advised a girls’ boarding and day school in relation to allegations of malpractice in GCSE coursework assessments.
Leading individuals

Joanna Lada-Walicki - Barlow Robbins LLP

[back to top]

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‚Äėcentre of life test‚Äô in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of¬† ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan ¬† [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the ‚ÄúRegulations‚ÄĚ). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess ¬†Surinder Singh ¬†cases that appear before them.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a¬† sole representative visa ¬†is not ‚Äúa¬† majority shareholder in the overseas business‚ÄĚ.
  • Immigration Skills Charge - A Guide for Employers

    As a Sponsor, you may be required to pay the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) each time you sponsor a migrant in the  Tier 2 General  or  Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Long-term Staff  subcategory.
  • 5 FAQS about paragraph 320(11)

    In applications for entry clearance where the applicant has a negative immigration history in the UK, the application may be refused under the general grounds for refusal, which are found in part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Where an applicant has ¬†‚Äėpreviously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules‚Äô,¬† the application could be refused under paragraph 320(11). In this post we look at five frequently asked questions about paragraph 320(11).¬†
  • Multiple nationality and multiple citizenship (including dual nationality and dual citizenship)

    British nationality law permits multiple nationality and multiple citizenship, including dual nationality and dual citizenship.
  • Applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the Exceptional Talent or Promise Category

    The  Exceptional Talent  and Exceptional Promise categories are for individuals who are recognised leaders or emerging leaders in their field of expertise. There are a number of endorsing bodies for lots of different fields of work, including  artists and musicians ,  architects ,  digital experts ,  scientists  and  academics . While there isn’t an endorsing body for every expert, the growing list means that many individuals could enjoy the flexibility that this category has to offer. 

    Syedur Rahmanconsiders the factors that determine when civil proceedings can go ahead before,or at the same time as, criminal proceedings relating to the same circumstances.
  • Rights of appeal after the Immigration Act 2014

    The Immigration Act 2014 (‚Äúthe 2014 Act‚ÄĚ) reduced the circumstances in which the refusal of an immigration application will give rise to a right of appeal.¬†The¬† explanatory notes ¬†to the 2014 Act state that the Act was intended to restructure rights of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. Previously, a right of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal existed against any of the 14 different immigration decisions listed in s.82 of the¬† Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ¬†(‚Äúthe 2002 Act‚ÄĚ). As explained below, whether or not the refusal of an immigration application currently generates a right of appeal depends on the subject matter of the application rather than its categorisation.